Obama Spending-Freeze Pledge Criticized as 'Deficit Preservation'

[Avorysuds]

Apparently, you were listening too close...we're talking about less spending. That's something you liberals will never be able to grasp.

You need 400 billion of cuts now just to offset the lost revenue from the recent tax cuts.

What tax cut? You mean keeping the taxes the same is a tax cut???????????????????//

And all 400billion was casued by allowing rich people to keep tax cuts!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Meister]

You need 400 billion of cuts now just to offset the lost revenue from the recent tax cuts.

What tax cut? You mean keeping the taxes the same is a tax cut???????????????????//

And all 400billion was casued by allowing rich people to keep tax cuts!!!!!!!!!!!!

You mean allowing the rich people to keep their own money!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Their money....not our money.

 

[Meister]

I thought the rightwing argument was that the tax cuts would increase revenues?

If that were true, then the recent tax cuts would increase revenues, and with spending frozen, revenues would grow relative to spending and thus pay down the deficit.

I guess all you clowns that made the above claim don't want to defend it now, eh?

Apparently, you were listening too close...we're talking about less spending. That's something you liberals will never be able to grasp.

You need 400 billion of cuts now just to offset the lost revenue from the recent tax cuts.

What tax cuts....everyone is making the same as they have been.

 

[Meister]

I thought the rightwing argument was that the tax cuts would increase revenues?

If that were true, then the recent tax cuts would increase revenues, and with spending frozen, revenues would grow relative to spending and thus pay down the deficit.

I guess all you clowns that made the above claim don't want to defend it now, eh?

Apparently, you were listening too close...we're talking about less spending. That's something you liberals will never be able to grasp.

When has the GOP ever 'grasped' it??

Looks like they're trying with what was submitted......more than a trillion over the next 10 years. What have the dems come up with????????

 

[boedicca]

I thought the rightwing argument was that the tax cuts would increase revenues?

If that were true, then the recent tax cuts would increase revenues, and with spending frozen, revenues would grow relative to spending and thus pay down the deficit.

I guess all you clowns that made the above claim don't want to defend it now, eh?

And what tax cuts would those be?

All Obama has done is to keep in place tax rates that were enacted in 2001 and 2003, and then add some temporary tax rebate and social security "holiday" gimmicks. Temporary gimmicks do no spur growth.

 

[Meister]

Apparently, you were listening too close...we're talking about less spending. That's something you liberals will never be able to grasp.

Politicians wouldn't reduce the deficit with more revenues....it would equate to spending more. It's not in them to do it any different

That was precisely Bush's argument in 2001 when he called for tax cuts to get rid of the surplus.

How did that work out??

When has Bush said the tax cuts were to get rid of the surplus? It stimulated the economy to bring us out of a recession....and seemed to have worked.
Spending really increased when the dems took the Senate and Congress in 2008, hmmmm.

 

[Charles_Main]

President Obama's pledge to freeze some federal spending for five years was met with yawns Wednesday from a slew of fiscally minded Republicans who say that if the president is serious about tackling the national debt, he'll have to do a lot better than that.

Congressional Republicans want to see deep cuts in the budget, as demonstrated by a GOP proposal last week to slash $2.5 trillion over the next decade and a proposal Tuesday from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to cut $500 billion in one year.

Their calls to dismantle entire agencies and departments might not get much bipartisan support. But by comparison, the president's call to freeze domestic spending for five years, yielding a projected savings of $400 billion over a decade, looked too tame to many lawmakers.









Obama Spending-Freeze Pledge Criticized as 'Deficit Preservation' - FoxNews.com

That is exactly what it is. We can not afford to simply say were not going to spend anymore than 1.5 Trillion dollars worth of Deficit. We must cut that number or this country is going to see an economic disaster that will make the Great Depression look like good times.

 

[boedicca]

Politicians wouldn't reduce the deficit with more revenues....it would equate to spending more. It's not in them to do it any different

That was precisely Bush's argument in 2001 when he called for tax cuts to get rid of the surplus.

How did that work out??

When has Bush said the tax cuts were to get rid of the surplus? It stimulated the economy to bring us out of a recession....and seemed to have worked.
Spending really increased when the dems took the Senate and Congress in 2008, hmmmm.

Indeed. The Bush tax cuts helped reduce unemployment to a level below 5% (which the Dems described as a Jobless Recover). Heh.

 

[boedicca]

This is as good a place as any to commemorate Winning The Future:

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought the rightwing argument was that the tax cuts would increase revenues?

If that were true, then the recent tax cuts would increase revenues, and with spending frozen, revenues would grow relative to spending and thus pay down the deficit.

I guess all you clowns that made the above claim don't want to defend it now, eh?

Funny.

Obama is not talking about freezing spending across the board, or extending that spending freeze until the budget is balanced, which actually would accomplish something like what you describe. He is talking about freezing non defense discretionary spending. As that is only 12% of the current budget, and both defense and non discretionary spending would increase, the net result would, at best, result in a savings of $200 billion over that 5 year period. Since the deficit for this year alone will be $1.4 trillion that $200 billion savings cannot possibly balance the budget. Even a partisan hack should be able to see that.